Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Tairgim: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I thank everybody for being present for the Second Reading of the Bill. It is by providence that we are here today. We have to thank the peoples of Germany and eastern Europe, in particular, who have gained their independence from the Soviet Union in recent times. I also thank the peoples of Armenia, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Span and Sweden who have inserted into their constitutions the principles and safeguards proposed in the Bill. It is providence because this Private Members' Bill was tabled for its First Reading on 18 February 2014 and under the rules, if the Government does not object, it can proceed to Second Stage but only if comes out of the lottery drum. I thank providence that the Bill is having its Second Reading. I am nothing more than the courier of what is an excellent set of principles and an excellent safeguard in the constitutions of the countries I have named. It is through the trauma of history that they came to be inserted. There has been a terrible trail of destruction, loss of life and mutilation in these countries as a result of not having such a constitutional provision.

The wording is taken verbatim from an official translation of Article 38.1 of the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany. It states "The Members of Parliament [in their case, the Bundestag; in our case, each House of the Oireachtas] shall be representatives of the whole people not bound by orders or institutions and responsible only to their conscience". Edmund Burke talked about this principle. The conscience is that of a responsible, thinking human being who has the honour, privilege, responsibility and solemn mandate in parliament to represent the whole people and to be bound as a legate. It is to prevent people from doing anything other than what they have been instructed to do. This rigidity is dangerous; it is what happened when infiltration of democracy occurred in Germany in the 1930s, as the German people are well aware. I lived and worked for 15 months in Lithuania and the former Soviet republics, now the new democracies of eastern Europe, are protected and safeguarded - a word I like - by this principle.

Of what is there to be afraid when the Government talks about political reform? It is a good objective, but the evidence shows that there is nothing happening in that regard. What has happened runs contrary to the principle entailed by this constitutional provision. The red lights are flashing and the alarm bells are ringing. We are in Parliament to serve the people, nothing more, nothing less, and to hold the Government to account, but in my experience that has not happened in my experience, which is a shame. That is why when we engage in a reality check, we visit hospitals to see the queues and people waiting on trolleys. Yesterday schools were closed. In addition, the banks are bust and not working. We were told by the Governor of the Central Bank that €40 billion in losses was put on the people; that is the sum after the fog has cleared. That is wrong. It is a lie and an illusion. The amount is €100 billion, of which €40 billion is official national debt with harps around it that is managed by the National Treasury Management Agency, while €60 billion comprises the debt mountain that private households, families and business are still carrying, which equates to negative equity, pain, sickness, broken families and under equipped schools. That is the reality which no statistics can deny. That is why people are objecting on the streets.

Let us look at how we can safeguard our parliamentary opportunity to hold the Government to account as provided for in the Bill. I thank Members who are supportive of the Bill, some of whom are members of parties, which is good. The proposal to include a safeguard provision in the Constitution would do nothing to change the arrangements or otherwise of parties. Let nobody try to fool people into believing it would because it would not. I invite Members to read the wording of the proposal and to do so umpteen times. It is in plain and simple and does not need any interpretation or calibration. It is as simple as, "You shall not kill," in that one does not have to ask a lawyer how to define the word "kill". Do not insult the people.

Why is it that in recent polls people have said they do not trust parties? The reason is - this has not been articulated - parties are too dominant and rigid. They do not allow for the organic breathing of liberty and democracy, which is wrong. The reason people are saying they propose to vote for Independents is they do not trust parties.

I am delighted to say Fianna Fáil is supportive of the proposal, which is good. I know from speaking to individual Members, including some members of the Government parties, that, personally, they support the proposal. Why is that? It is because it is logically unassailable. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh will be aware that I explained to his leader how it is unassailable. It is very simple. Rather than attribute the following to any party, let us take the example of a new party with 200,000 members from all over the country. It holds an Ard Fheis in Dublin where there are many venues which are large enough to cater for 200,000 people, at which are discussed its proposed policies on health, education and finance-taxation and its desire to be fair to the people in terms of the distribution of the resources available. Following a three-day debate it arrives at a set of principled policies which it will support and which are supported unanimously. This is possible. It also supports a candidate to stand in the general election. We will name that candidate Mr. Keogh who is unanimously approved as a candidate.

See this speech in context